ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is filed seeking quash of the proceedings in S.C.No.195/S/2018 in Crime No281 of 2017, dated 10.11.2017 on the file of Special Court for SC, ST (POA) Act Cases at Guntur-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent- de facto complainant.

3. The petitioner is the sole accused in the above S.C. No.195/S/2018 on the file of Special Court for SC, ST (POA) Act Cases at Guntur-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur District. He is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections 354 (a), 354(D)(i), 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC, ST (POA) Act. After charge sheet is filed in the trial Court, the present criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed seeking quash of the said proceedings. When the criminal petition came up for hearing before this Court, the petitioner has filed I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2021 seeking permission to compound the said offences on the ground that both the de facto complainant and the petitioner have entered into compromise in the said case and that the de facto complainant has no objection to acquit the petitioner/accused in the said crime.

4. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, both de facto complainant and the petitioner, who is accused in the said case, are present before the Court today. They are identified by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Nagarampalem Police Station, who is present before the Court today.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent have also identified the de facto complainant and the accused.

6. When the de facto complainant is questioned, she has uninvocably stated that she entered into compromise with the accused willingly as per her free consent and that there was no compulsion on her to enter into such compromise.

7. The offences which are registered against the petitioner are non-compoundable offences. They are not compoundable either with the permission of the Court or without permission of the Court as contemplated under Section 320(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. However, the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 = AIR 2012 S.C. 838 held that even when the offences are non-compoundable, when the parties have entered into a compromise, except in certain offences like murder, rape, dacoity and offences arising out of special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants in their official capacity, the other offences in criminal cases can be allowed to be compromised despite the fact that they are non-compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C and this Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. Therefore, considering the dictum laid down in the aforesaid judgment, even though the offences registered against the petitioner are non-compoundable offences, having regard to the fact that both parties have entered into a compromise, as continuation of proceedings amount to abuse of process of Court, the same can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in exercising inherent powers of this Court and order for acquittal of the accused.

9. Therefore, I.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 2021 which are filed seeking permission to compound the offence and to record compromise between the parties are allowed. Consequently, the Criminal Petition No.5256 of 2021 is allowed, in view of the compromise entered into by both the parties, quashing all further proceedings in S.C. No.195/S/2018 on the file of Special Court for SC, ST (POA) Act Cases at Guntur-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur District. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand disposed of.